Aviator LLC v Spribe Oü [2025] EWHC 2153 (Ch)
This was an application by Spribe for an interim injunction to prevent trade mark infringement and passing off. The interesting legal aspects of the dispute were the Respondent’s assertions that: (i) Spribe had brought the application against the wrong party; and (ii) in quia timet scenarios the court should apply the test in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch), rather than that in American Cyanamid.
Spribe operates an online ‘crash’ gambling game in the UK under indicia in respect of which Spribe owns registered trade marks and claims goodwill. The claim arises because the Claimant contends that Spribe’s activities amount to an infringement of copyright subsisting in similar indicia in respect of which the Claimant asserts ownership. The counterclaim arises because the Claimant Aviator company licensed that copyright to other Aviator-named companies for the purposes of operating online crash games, and Spribe fears that the Claimant, itself or in common design with its licensees, intends to target the UK market. The Claimant contended that those licensing activities were at arms’ length and that the Claimant would have no further involvement in any targeting of the UK by its licensees.
The Court declined to apply the Vastint test, and applying American Cyanamid found that there was a serious issue to be tried as to the extent of the Claimant’s involvement. It made an interim order preventing the Claimant, whether acting itself or in common design, from targeting the UK.
Benet Brandreth KC and Christopher Hall appeared for the Applicant, instructed by Bird & Bird LLP